Although renewable energies are being developed, there's an increasing recognition in some academic circles that they're not coming fast enough to meet expanding global energy needs. In recognition that fossil fuels will be used for quite some time, Rice University has created a $1 million Green Carbon Center to study ways to use carbon-based fuels in a more environmentally friendly manner. Two of the principal scientists behind the effort are celebrated nanotechnology researchers James Tour and Vicki Colvin. Science writer Eric Berger spoke with Colvin about the new center's creation.

Q. This is a bit far afield from materials science. How did you and Jim Tour get involved?

A. It got started in discussions I was having with folks here at Rice, Amy Jaffe at the Baker Institute and Peter Hartley, who is an economist here. It's part of an initiative here to think through the really big problems in energy over the next century. As I dug into this, I was actually kind of stunned. From most of the models for how we're going to use energy for the next century, even from the most liberal of sources, it is really tough to see renewable energy sources becoming a significant part of what we're going to use over the next 50 years. Jim was sort of going through a similar thing.

Q. So how does green carbon come into it?

A. We started out with the term "green carbon." But because carbon is hard to make totally green, it morphed into greener carbon. It's basically innovative strategies that acknowledge the reality of our reliance on fossil fuels both now and into the next 50 years, but looking for new ways of doing things other than burning it. We're looking for scientific and technological ideas that lower the environmental and economic costs of reliance on fossil fuels. The result of that is greener carbon.

Q. What's an example of one of these ideas?

A. One really good example that comes from Carrie Masiello's group is biochar, which is a really interesting way of sequestering carbon. This means burning the waste that comes from chicken farms or even landfills, and if it's burned under the right conditions, you get charcoal like what you get in your barbecue. And it turns out it's a closed cycle. The combustion process is such that there's very little CO2 involved, and in particular with the hydrogen and water involved, they go back into the process to drive the generator to produce heat and produce more biochar. It takes the carbon present in the organic matter and puts it in a more concentrated form. Then it can be applied to soil to retain water and increase crop productivity. This is an example of a greener carbon in which you're burning the carbon but you're not doing a typical combustion. This could have an impact on carbon dioxide produced by agriculture.

Q. There does not seem to be much of a political appetite for carbon taxes. What are the economics of these approaches?

A. One of the interesting issues with energy economics is that you have to build infrastructure. So for biochar you'd have to build these reactors, which is a one-time, up-front investment. But once you do that you're actually creating a product, biochar, that you can sell. And if there's a carbon credit some day, then you get money because you're capturing the carbon. The economics depend somewhat on policy therefore.

Q. Is there any way to turn carbon dioxide itself into a commodity?

A. That's something Jim is very interested in. If you have hydrogen, and you can get it from fuel cell technology, you can capture CO2 in big balloons. And with the right amount of hydrogen you can actually start to make things we really care about, like the building blocks for pretty much all of the specialty chemicals we rely on for our every day lives, basically all of the end products of the petroleum industry.

Q. What's the role of Houston in all this?

A. We are in Houston, Texas, and we're surrounded by companies that really know fossil fuels. But if they cannot update or revolutionize some of the ways in which they use those fuels, they're not going to be in business in 30 years and, even forgetting the CO2, the environmental costs of that would be horrific for emissions and air quality and all of the other problems with combustion. So I think there's a recognition of our place here.